Category Archives: Osama Bin Laden

Post navigation

My faith and hope in our country has been renewed! Meet Jenny Cantrell, a 13-year-old student who held Obama and Romney to the same grading system she and her fellow students are required to meet. She graded them on the economy, business, Obamcare, energy, national debt, and national security. Jenny’s youth and inexperience in politics kept her open-minded and analytical.

Her teachers and parents should be proud! She is our hope!

Excellent job Jenny! After her stint as ‘Teacher for the Day’ Jenny made a follow-up video regarding the auto bailout, unions, the debates, taxes, redistribution of wealth, and the candidates’ values. She nailed those too!

I must confess that, in 2008, I was impressed by Barack Obama. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared confident and was as smooth as a rock star. He commanded the stage and screen. I was really confident that this man, being black and having a possible semi-Muslim upbringing, was the perfect candidate to make lasting peace in the Middle East. I was sure that Israel was going to see a much-needed peace with the Palestinians, and my visits to eat great humus in Tulkarem — a small Palestinian town near Netanya — would one day soon be possible again.

But I was put off very soon after President Obama took office. The first time I began to look more closely at him was when I watched his speech in Cairo. I listened in awe and disbelief, but I thought that this may be a ploy to embrace the Muslim world and develop a mutual respect with the Arabs. Perhaps, I thought, this was a great tactic in showing friendship and commitment to the Muslim masses.

All too soon, my hopes started to fade. As I began watching President Obama’s body language and listened more closely to his tone of voice, I noticed a shallowness and an air of haughtiness that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his words. It stunned me to watch his speeches, which were filled with such “religious” inflection that it struck me in a why it no doubt did for so many others.

I watched and watched and saw how things in this volatile region of heated debate and steady but almost controlled violence started spiraling way out of control. What I thought were going to be U.S. accomplishments in this historic and religious global epicenter turned out to be deadly failures with long-term consequences.

I went back to watch the Cairo speech, watching over and over again, and I noticed that President Obama is really not an ordinary man. Hischaracter is indeed unique in that he has the ability to impress or frustrate. Even though I felt that at times he was quite ignorant to the most important subjects relating to Israel, like the 1967 borders, he never really spoke like a lawyer or politician but rather someone who was out to prove that he was the epicenter and not the problem.

Obama’s language, posture and demeanor seemed wrong to me. This was supposed to be a president who gave hope to so many, who was supposed to implement change in a positive way for all. It was as if President Obama was projecting a grandiose posture that was not his. He looked out of place and suddenly was not the presidential figure representing the free world.

It seemed that he created a sort of personality cult around himself, elevating his admirers blindly, presenting a somewhat false trust of enthusiasm that led followers to believe that no matter what he said in his speeches, he was free to do as he wished, unaccountable at all times. These admirers would follow at any cost, blindly as if in a daze or hypnotized. He promised the moon but delivered doom, and people were missing the real-life threats taking place, unfolding as an optical illusion of a beautiful spring dubbed “the Arab Spring.”

In searching for answers to find out what Obama’s real agenda on Israel was, I became swamped with irrelevant accusations, doctored pictures and cartoons. The mainstream media was promoting Obama, pushing him forward into the sphere that he sought to be. They, too, were blinded. I found an interesting observation by chance when I came across the behavioral patterns of narcissism. This disorder was common in the likes of other world leaders, but more so in dictators and power-seekers, those who wanted control as if it meant everything.

I am by no means a professional psychologist, nor have I ever had any training other than simple body language classes and perhaps a more in-depth profiling education based on the work I carried out as an Israeli police officer. Having said this, I started noticing alarming signs that perhaps indicate a slight narcissistic trend in President Obama. I base this assumption on the president’s speeches and statements, both on and off the record.

Obama’s imposing personality overwhelms those around him. He charms with his charisma. He shapes those around him and reduces others in his own inverted image (as we saw with his snubbing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).

I drew from my readings that narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power and control.

All other issues are meaningless to them, and they do not like to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention (remember President Obama’s recent comments when he snubbed Netanyahu’s request for action on the Iranian nuclear weapons program?).

Take a look at his attitude while serving in the U.S. Senate. If an issue was raised in the Senate that did not help Obama in one way or another, he had no interest in it. “Present” was a safe vote. No one could criticize him if things went wrong. Those issues were unworthy by their very nature because they were not about him.

A study by a leading psychologist found that Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected, and at the end, the project evolved into his own autobiography. Instead of a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama it seems could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He titled the book, “Dreams from My Father.”

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is perhaps evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother, who lives in poverty. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because his brother cannot be used in his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

There is no doubt this election has been like no other in the history of America. The main issues are really insignificant compared to what is at stake in the form of lives being spared and countries disappearing and, yes, the global economy. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality, as the leader of the free world?

An August 16th cable requested additional security and reported there were ten Islamist militias and Al Qaeda groups in Benghazi andthey could not sustain an organized attack. This information reportedly went directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from Ambassador Stevens. Stevens also informed Clinton that he feared an attack on the consulate would be next.

Fox News also reports: “It was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.”

As Catherine Herridge said, “This may be the smoking gun.” I fervently hope it is enough evidence to fire and prosecute those in charge!

Is it treason when you put your own reelection above the good of your country and the lives of its citizens? If so, Barack Obama committed treason in leaving the four Americans to die in Benghazi.

Our Constitution defines it this way: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Aid and comfort to the enemy — what is that?

When you ascribe an action to the protest of a video when it is actuality a planned terror attack by Ansar al-Shariah, an established offshoot of al-Qaeda (if that’s not your “enemy,” then who) — and you knew that all along, you watched it live without doing anything, and then you told those who wanted to help to “stand down”? Meanwhile, our government may have been conspiring to arm another offshoot of al-Qaeda in Syria.

How much more treasonous can you get? Benedict Arnold was a piker.

Indeed, the discussion of Benghazi has just begun. And don’t be surprised if the conversation escalates from impeachment to treason very quickly. In fact, if Obama wins reelection you can bet on it. The cries of treason will be unstoppable. Not even if the mainstream media will be able to deny them.

As Pat Caddell[2] noted, those same media lapdogs have muzzled themselves in an unprecedented manner in this matter, but our Canadian friends[3] at least have some semblance of honor left, writing:

It is undoubtedly worse than Obama simply turned his back on cornered American citizens in a foreign land, knowing undoubtedly they would die. But that Barack did so without any compelling reason—except political—is beyond evil. Only a moral monster would have made that decision when it was within his powers to possibly save them with almost no effort of his own.

Moral monster? Those are extreme words but they fit an extreme situation and are appropriate to the use of the t-word. But it’s worse. Many now are trying to figure out the motivation for this behavior — beyond the obvious electoral whoring mentioned above, the need to be seen in a certain manner at a certain moment to be sure the Ohio vote doesn’t fall the wrong way.

But is there more than that? Is the treason yet greater? Were Obama and others covering up more than their ineptitude? Just what was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi that day? Why had he left the Libyan capital to meet with the Turkish ambassador on the anniversary of September 11?

…one of Stevens’ main missions in Libya was to facilitate the transfer of much of Gadhafi’s military equipment, including the deadly SA-7 – portable SAMs – to Islamists and other al Qaeda-affiliated groups fighting the Assad Regime in Syria. In an excellent article, Aaron Klein[5] states that Stevens routinely used our Benghazi consulate (mission) to coordinate the Turkish, Saudi Arabian and Qatari governments’ support for insurgencies throughout the Middle East. Further, according to Egyptian security sources, Stevens played a “central role in recruiting Islamic jihadists to fight the Assad Regime in Syria.”

…that there were two large warehouse-type buildings associated with our Benghazi mission. During the terrorist attack, the warehouses were probably looted. We do not know what was there and if it was being administrated by our two former Navy SEALs and the CIA operatives who were in Benghazi. Nonetheless, the equipment was going to hardline jihadis.

Do we know that for sure? I certainly don’t, although on the face of it sounds like a “Fast & Furious” scandal on a global scale with extraordinary geopolitical implications. But I imagine there are those who do know the truth, or a lot of it, considering the events were being watched in real time.

None of this, of course, exonerates our government in not giving support to our four now dead men in the field.

Many questions remain to be answered — some of which are listed here[7]. But I do not think I am being excessive in raising the treason accusation. I would be pleased to withdraw it if proven wrong.

Los Angeles-based Roger L. Simon is the author of ten novels, including the prize-winning Moses Wine detective series, and six screenplays, including Enemies: A Love Story for which he was nominated for an Academy Award. He served as president of the West Coast branch of PEN and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America. Mr. Simon was on the faculty of the American Film Institute and the Sundance Institute. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the Yale School of Drama. In February 2009, he published his first non-fiction book – Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine: The Perils of Coming Out Conservative in Tinseltown. Mr. Simon is the co-founder and CEO of PJ Media.

Barack Hussein Obama at the UN: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” No, Mr. President, the future must not belong to jihadists who want to kill us nor to those who continue to lie to us about ‘the religion of peace’!

I have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he was a socialist. But Obama’s behavior over the last four years regarding Islam has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered worldview — a combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.

Having been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the seventies, I have witnessed socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism, and even communism, have managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to full-fledged Sharia. The two ideologies have blended together in cases including the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies, such as the United States, are alien to Islam and socialism both because they regard government as a servant of the people and hold that human rights are granted by God and not by government or the code of Sharia.

Both Sharia and socialism are united in their envy of Western society and need to change it. That is why Obama has become the savior of both Islam and socialism. He embodies both ideologies. The claim that Obama is a Christian was a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to fit the goals of both creeds.

Obama became the One, the savior of both Islam and socialists. To do that, Obama had to deny who he really was, which explains why his actions and words have never added up. At the recent Alfred E. Smith Catholic Charity dinner speech, Obama did not seem to be just kidding when he said that Romney uses his middle name Mitt and “I wish I could use my middle name.” Obama was referring, of course, to his Islamic middle name of Hussein. In Obama’s mind, he was not ashamed for having deceived America — he blamed America for putting him in the position of having to deny his true pride in his middle name.

That brings us to an important discovery by WND in an article by Jerome Corsi titled: “Obama’s Ring: ‘There is no God But Allah’.” The article featured close-up photos of a ring still worn by Obama today in the White House, one that he has worn since his visit to Pakistan as a young man. The ring, which later also became his wedding ring, has very tiny and discrete Arabic calligraphy that means nothing to Americans, but to Arabic-speaking people like myself and Dr. Mark Gabriel, means quite a lot. Such Islamic calligraphy is commonly found throughout the gold markets of the Muslim world. I am not a writing expert, but I can clearly see on the ring the word ‘La Ilaha IllaAllah. (“There is no god but god.”)’ Such a sentence in Arabic has a lot of the letters A and L which in Arabic are simply a straight line like the number one.

The only explanation for Obama’s exciting ring secret is that he is a closet Muslim and feels that he can serve Islam best if he denies his being a Muslim for the purpose of a higher aspiration to serve the Muslim world from the White House, in Islamic terms the “higher jihad.” Obama has no problem whatsoever in lying for the sake of “Hope and Change” since lying about being a Muslim in a majority non-Muslim country is allowed under Islam. Lying for the purpose of jihad (known as “taqqiya”) is not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of and even serves as a reason to blame the enemies of Islam for one’s lies. Sharia law states: “Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory.” Muslim clerics have no problem in lying not just to the non-Muslim world but even to the Muslim masses, since Islam also allows Muslims to lie in order to bring Muslims together in harmony and friendship.

That brings us to the current debacle in Libya, which can only be understood if we grasp Obama’s worldviews as regards the “Muslim World.” Like the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims, Obama insists Islam in and of itself has nothing to do with terrorism and blames previous American foreign policy (along with Israel), for Islamic anger. Obama narrowed down the problem of Islamism to Al Qaeda while embracing other Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as moderate. In the process, Obama dismissed the Brotherhood’s long history of terror, which in fact gave birth to Al Qaeda and hundreds of other terror groups. Nothing in Obama’s world is the fault of Islam, which is why he ordered the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as “workplace violence” and not Islamic terrorism.

Obama believes that he uniquely understands the Muslim world and will bring about a new era of peace with Islam, at least during his administration. There are strong rumors in Egypt that when Obama met with the Egyptian foreign minister, he confided in him that he was a Muslim and that he would assist the Islamic cause in America after he passes the Health Care Bill.

But as president of the United States, Obama was caught in a quagmire between protecting American lives and appearing loyal to Islam. Placing American Marines at US consulates in dangerous terror-infested Islamic countries created the possibility of a bloody confrontation between American security and Islamists. That would discredit Obama’s attempt to separate Islam from terrorism. Also, if Obama confronted militant Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his entire claim to opening a new page in American/Islamic relations would fall apart. He would then be no different from his predecessors, Bush or Reagan.

That explains why the demands for American security by U.S. ambassador Stevens went unanswered. Obama did not want to deal with the possibility that American Marines would shoot at Muslim attackers in order to save American lives.

According to Sharia, it is a capital crime for a Muslim individual or leader to shoot at fellow Muslims — even Islamists — for the purpose of protecting Americans. That would make Obama a violator of Sharia and an apostate. If Obama considers himself a Muslim and wears an Islamic ring, then he must have had a very hard time deciding on how to protect the consulate without killing Muslim attackers. His solution? Settling for the lesser of two evils: getting Muslims, in the form of Libyan security, to guard the property and in this way, forcing Muslims to shoot other Muslims in order to defend the consulate. But that plan was useless because even the Muslim guards had to follow Sharia, and ran away and left the Americans to be killed rather than violate Sharia themselves by killing other Muslims. Obama gambled with the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and left them as sacrificial lambs rather than violate the dictates of sharia.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.

Today Fox News Channel’s Jennifer Griffin reported that sources on the ground in Benghazi told her “that three urgent requests from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. Consulate and subsequent attack nearly seven hours later were denied by officials in the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators to ‘stand down’ rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.” It was also reported that the events were being broadcast live as they were unfolding in Benghazi.

This came as quite a shock to Charles Woods, father of slain operative Tyrone Woods.

Mr. Woods said that, as a family, they did not want to politicize the death of their son; however, he is extremely upset and frustrated with an administration that refuses to provide truth and facts surrounding his son’s death.

In an interview with Glenn Beck yesterday Mr. Woods described his meeting with the President, Vice President and Hillary Clinton at the memorial service at Joint Base Andrews for his son and the three other Americans killed. He claimed the President appeared emotionless and “shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish. His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye, his eyes were over my shoulder.” “I could tell that he was not sorry,” he added. “He had no remorse.”

He recalled Vice President Biden saying to him “in an extremely loud and boisterous voice,” “Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?” He questioned the sincerity of their sympathy, and that of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

He said Clinton told him “they would find and prosecute the person who made the video” that she claimed was the cause of the massacre. “When she said that, I could tell that she was not telling me the truth,” Woods said about Clinton.

Mr. Woods called into the Lars Larson radio program:

As events unfolded Mr. Woods was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on Fox News:

It is inconceivable that any American could watch and listen to these and then vote for Obama. I sympathize with Mr. Woods and pray he and his family get the answers they deserve. I hope his son receives the honor and respect he deserves for putting his life on the line for his fellow Americans. Mr. Woods, you should be very proud of your son and I am so very sorry your country is letting you down.

Post navigation

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or, any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is un-patriotic not to oppose him, to the exact extent that by inefficiency or, otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In any event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth - whether about the President or anyone else - save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.”
~THEODORE ROOSEVELT~

FOLLOW BLOG VIA EMAIL

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.